| Literature DB >> 35622594 |
Carla Viegas1,2,3, Renata Cervantes1, Marta Dias1,2,3, Bianca Gomes1, Pedro Pena1, Elisabete Carolino1, Magdalena Twarużek4, Robert Kosicki4, Ewelina Soszczyńska4, Susana Viegas1,2,3, Liliana Aranha Caetano1,5.
Abstract
Cemeteries are potential environmental reservoirs of pathogenic microorganisms from organic matter decomposition. This study aimed to characterize the microbial contamination in three cemeteries, and more specifically in grave diggers' facilities. One active sampling method (impingement method) and several passive sampling methods (swabs, settled dust, settled dust filters and electrostatic dust cloths-EDC) were employed. The molecular detection of Aspergillus sections and SARS-CoV-2, as well as mycotoxin analysis, screening of azole resistance, and cytotoxicity measurement were also conducted. Total bacteria contamination was 80 CFU·m-2 in settled dust samples, reached 849 CFU·m-2 in EDC and 20,000 CFU·m-2 in swabs, and ranged from 5000 to 10,000 CFU·m-2 in filters. Gram-negative bacteria (VRBA) were only observed in in settled dust samples (2.00 × 105 CFU·m-2). Regarding Aspergillus sp., the highest counts were obtained in DG18 (18.38%) and it was not observed in azole-supplemented SDA media. SARS-CoV-2 and the targeted Aspergillus sections were not detected. Mycophenolic acid was detected in one settled dust sample. Cytotoxic effects were observed for 94.4% filters and 5.6% EDC in A549 lung epithelial cells, and for 50.0% filters and 5.6% EDC in HepG2 cells. Future studies are needed in this occupational setting to implement more focused risk management measures.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus; SARS-CoV-2; azole resistance; cemeteries; cytotoxicity; mycotoxins; occupational health
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35622594 PMCID: PMC9146229 DOI: 10.3390/toxins14050348
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxins (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6651 Impact factor: 5.075
Figure 1Fungal contamination distribution in the collected environmental samples (EDC CFU·m−2·day−1; Filters and Swabs CFU·m−2; Settled dust: CFU·g−1).
Figure 2Aspergillus sections distribution by media and sampling method.
Fungal species’ distribution in azole-supplemented media by type of environmental samples.
| SDA | ITZ | VCZ | PSZ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matrice | Species | CFU·m−2·Day−1/g−1/m2 | % | CFU·m−2·Day−1/g−1/m−2 | % | CFU·m−2·Day−1/g−1/m−2 | % | CFU·m−2·Day−1/g−1/m−2 | % |
| EDC | 1.06 × 102 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 1.06 × 102 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 5.20 × 104 | 54.4 | 7.01 × 104 | 36.9 | 1.46 × 105 | 64.1 | 1.00 × 104 | 16.5 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.00 × 104 | 8.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
|
| 2.06 × 104 | 21.6 | 6.01 × 104 | 31.6 | 5.03 × 104 | 22.0 | 5.03 × 104 | 83.3 | |
| 2.17 × 104 | 22.7 | 6.00 × 104 | 31.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.06 × 104 | 0.2 | ||
| Other species | 1.06 × 103 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.16 × 104 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total | 9.56 × 104 | 100.0 | 1.90 × 105 | 100.0 | 2.28 × 105 | 100.0 | 6.04 × 104 | 100.0 | |
| FILTERS | 1.05 × 104 | 33.9 | 5.00 × 102 | 33.3 | 1.00 × 104 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
|
| 1.00 × 103 | 3.2 | 5.00 × 102 | 33.3 | 5.00 × 102 | 25.0 | 6.00 × 103 | 92.3 | |
|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.00 × 102 | 33.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 1.90 × 104 | 61.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.00 × 102 | 25.0 | 5.00 × 102 | 7.7 | ||
| Other species | 5.00 × 102 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total | 3.10 × 104 | 100.0 | 1.50 × 103 | 100.0 | 2.00 × 103 | 100.0 | 6.50 × 103 | 100.0 | |
| SWABS | 1.10 × 105 | 37.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.00 × 104 | 57.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
|
| 1.00 × 105 | 34.5 | 3.00 × 104 | 60.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.00 × 104 | 75.0 | |
| 5.00 × 104 | 17.2 | 1.00 × 104 | 20.0 | 2.00 × 104 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 × 104 | 14.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 × 104 | 20.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 × 104 | 25.0 | ||
| Other species | 3.00 × 104 | 10.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total | 2.90 × 105 | 100.0 | 5.00 × 104 | 100.0 | 7.00 × 104 | 100.0 | 4.00 × 104 | 100.0 | |
| SETTLED DUST | 4.00 | 7.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
|
| 1.00 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.00 | 57.1 | 1.06 × 102 | 92.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.00 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
|
| 1.50 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 | 25.0 | ||
| 4.45 × 101 | 82.4 | 3.00 | 42.9 | 6.00 | 5.2 | 3.00 | 75.0 | ||
| Other species | 3.00 | 5.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Total | 5.40 × 101 | 100.0 | 7.00 | 100.0 | 1.15 × 102 | 100.0 | 4.00 | 100.0 | |
Distribution of IC50 values in filter and EDC from cemeteries.
| Dilution Step | Filters | EDC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC50 | A549 | HepG2 | IC50 | A549 | HepG2 | |
| 1 | 1 | 13 | 6 | 0.016 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 0.5 | 3 | 1 | 0.008 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 0.004 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0.125 | 0 | 2 | 0.002 | 0 | 0 |
| (-) | 1 | 9 | 17 | 17 | ||
(-) no cytotoxicity.
Heatmap of the study of the relationship between fungal contamination (MEA and DG18) and fungal resistance (SDA ITZ, VCZ, and PSZ) in each sampling method. Results of the Spearman correlation coefficient.
| Method | Media | Fungi (CFU·m−2/m−2·Day−1) | Fungal Resistance | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DG18 | SDA | ITZ | VCZ | PSZ | |||
| EDC | Fungi (CFU·m−2·day−1) | MEA | 0.242 | 0.105 | 0.284 | 0.340 | −0.035 |
| DG18 | 0.606 ** | 0.510 * | 0.692 ** | 0.345 | |||
| Fungal resistance (CFU·m−2·day−1) | SDA | 0.446 | 0.514 * | −0.034 | |||
| ITZ | 0.628 ** | 0.261 | |||||
| VCZ | 0.411 | ||||||
| Filters | Fungi (CFU·m−2) | MEA | 0.598 ** | 0.507 * | 0.188 | 0.675 ** | 0.162 |
| DG18 | 0.271 | 0.132 | 0.460 | −0.257 | |||
| Fungal resistance (CFU·m−2) | SDA | 0.378 | 0.623 ** | 0.238 | |||
| ITZ | 0.478 * | 0.452 | |||||
| VCZ | 0.225 | ||||||
| Swabs | Fungi (CFU·m−2) | MEA | 0.221 | 0.105 | −0.387 | −0.166 | −0.183 |
| DG18 | 0.646 ** | 0.228 | 0.405 | 0.257 | |||
| Fungal resistance (CFU·m−2) | SDA | 0.283 | 0.074 | 0.045 | |||
| ITZ | 0.214 | 0.037 | |||||
| VCZ | 0.399 | ||||||
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The colour indicates the correlation level found.
Comparison of fungal contamination (on MEA and DG18) and fungal resistance (on SDA, ITZ, VCZ and PSZ) between sampling methods. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test.
| Sampling Method | Ranks | Test Statistics | Kruskal–Wallis Multiple Comparisons Test | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean Rank | Kruskal–Wallis H | df | p | ||||
| Fungi | MEA | EDC | 18 | 19.58 | 6.943 | 2 | 0.031 * | EDC ≠ Filter ( |
| Filter | 18 | 32.17 | ||||||
| Swabs | 18 | 30.75 | ||||||
| Total | 54 | |||||||
| DG18 | EDC | 18 | 31.42 | 4.948 | 2 | 0.084 | ||
| Filter | 18 | 30.17 | ||||||
| Swabs | 18 | 20.92 | ||||||
| Total | 54 | |||||||
| Fungal resistance (CFU·m−2/m−2·day−1) | SDA | EDC | 18 | 24.67 | 16.003 | 2 | 0.000 * | EDC ≠ Swabs ( |
| Filter | 18 | 18.81 | Filter ≠ Swabs ( | |||||
| Swabs | 18 | 39.03 | ||||||
| Total | 54 | |||||||
| ITZ | EDC | 18 | 36.58 | 12.915 | 2 | 0.002 * | EDC ≠ Filter ( | |
| Filter | 18 | 20.92 | EDC ≠ Swabs ( | |||||
| Swabs | 18 | 25.00 | ||||||
| Total | 54 | |||||||
| VCZ | EDC | 18 | 36.94 | 12.729 | 2 | 0.002 * | EDC ≠ Filter ( | |
| Filter | 18 | 20.78 | EDC ≠ Swabs ( | |||||
| Swabs | 18 | 24.78 | ||||||
| Total | 54 | |||||||
| PSZ | EDC | 18 | 30.17 | 5.591 | 2 | 0.061 | ||
| Filter | 18 | 31.33 | ||||||
| Swabs | 18 | 21.00 | ||||||
| Total | 54 | |||||||
* Statistically significant differences at the 5% significance level.
Figure 3Cemetery locations in Lisbon city.
Figure 4Sampling approach applied in the cemetery’s assessment.